At least as far as the State of Wisconsin is concerned, Mr. Hatchett is dead wrong. The correct terminology is indeed, to seek to have the contents of a search warrant "sealed", not suppressed, usually for a specific length of time or until the investigation has concluded. It is not automatically granted and on occasion requires an "in camera" (private) meeting with the judge and the informant or undercover police officer whose life would be risked if they were identified before the conspirators could be arrested.
I've requested that the contents of a search warrant and the search warrant return (the report identifying all items removed for evidentiary purposes) be sealed on limited occasions. In every case, however, it involved the protection of an undercover officer's or informant's life.
Is there a possiblity for misuse and abuse of this investigative/protective tool.......of course, just as there is the possiblity of a defense attorney supplying his client with cocaine while his client is in jail. I've personally investigated the latter, but not the former.
It is our responsibility as citizens to ensure that the people elected to judicial, district attorney, chief of police, etc. positions have been put through the most intense screening process possible and are monitored throughout their tenure in office. The same holds true for screening potential law enforcement officers.
I have conducted investigations of corrupt police agencies outside my department and am proud to say the agencies were completely gutted and the guilty parties were imprisoned.
Just a comment for potential flamers...."No one hates and I mean hates a crooked cop more than an honest one and I was an honest one!"
EODGUY
I wouldn't argue that this needs to be done at times. I DON'T think it should be an automatic proess.
Former LEO? I thank you for your service to our country. You're in good company here if you stay away from the knuckleheads. You'll see them show up as lumps on this thread.